Planning Meeting for the Indigenous Peoples Climate Change Assessment
8-9 September 2008
Sheraton Palo Alto Hotel
Palo Alto, California, USA
Review of relevant assessment processes and their theoretical frameworks
1. Purpose of this review
The primary purpose of this review is to draw lessons from relevant assessments and their
frameworks that can be used in developing a conceptual framework for an indigenous
peoples’ climate change assessment. It has been prepared in order to provide a
background document for the preparation of a draft conceptual framework and
methodology for the Assessment (document # 3 for the Palo Alto meeting).
An indigenous peoples’ climate change assessment will require broad-based acceptance
to receive world-wide political and scientific credibility. In order to overcome the peer
reviewing requirement of the IPCC’s work, it will be important to develop a credible and
robust theoretical framework for the assessment.
A well-designed framework for either assessment or action provides a logical structure
for evaluating the system, ensures that the essential components of the system are
addressed as well as the relationships among those components, gives appropriate weight
to the different components of the system, and highlights important assumptions and gaps
in understanding1. It will also enhance the ability of the synthesis report to draw together
the various individual assessments.
A secondary purpose of this document is to provide a brief literature review relating to
traditional knowledge and climate change - highlighting the major conceptual and
methodological work undertaken in assessments of traditional knowledge and climate
change. This part of the document will serve as a first step towards a more
comprehensive literature review that will inform a future indigenous peoples’ climate
change assessment.
Section 2 of this document briefly outlines the methods used in selecting specific
assessments for review; section 3 looks at traditional knowledge and western science;
section 4 reviews major international environmental assessment frameworks; and section
1
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.aspx)
1
5 reviews frameworks used in major climate change impact assessments. Section 6
concentrates on assessments related to traditional knowledge and climate change, with an
emphasis on community-based assessments. This section also aims to highlight some of
the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of these assessments, and their
relationship to the conceptual frameworks of the major international assessments
reviewed in previous sections. Finally, section 7 draws some preliminary conclusions of
the material reviewed and sets the scene for an indigenous peoples’ climate change
assessment. Annex 1 provides a list of assessments and other related documents of
relevance to traditional knowledge and climate change.
2. Methods
This document is based on a preliminary review of major international environmental
assessments, as well as of other (local to global) assessments of relevance to traditional
knowledge and climate change. The international assessments reviewed here were
selected because of their status as well-accepted intergovernmental efforts and their
demonstrated importance for policy-making. The assessments were also selected due to
their reliance on an agreed-upon conceptual or theoretical framework.
The review of assessments and studies of relevance to traditional knowledge and climate
change aims to be more inclusive in its approach. The list of assessments and relevant
documents in Annex 1 is constructed from a variety of sources, including web searches,
partner websites, studies cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and other assessments. Donor websites
and case study databases (for example the UNFCCC database on local coping strategies)
were also searched for relevant information. Because of the wide variety of sources, the
list in the Annex is a mixture of published and peer reviewed literature, grey literature,
informational websites and videos. The underlying premise was to include all work that
might be of importance or relevance to a future indigenous peoples’ climate change
assessment.
It should be noted that the review of assessments and other work of relevance to
traditional knowledge and climate change is still preliminary and will likely have missed
relevant information. It is therefore expected that Annex 1 will be expanded and made
more comprehensive with the assistance of project partners as the work progresses. In
short, Annex 1 should, at this stage, be viewed as indicative rather than comprehensive.
3. Traditional knowledge and western science
Scientific assessments designed to provide a basis for global policy making have, over
the course of their short history, adopted characteristics and procedures that combine an
archetypal ‘scientific method’ as understood by western science at its most rigorous with
a series of quasi-diplomatic negotiation procedures designed to lead to consensus
conclusions. The reasons for this lie in the misgivings with which sovereign states and
their negotiators view the potential implications of the assessments and thus of the
assessment processes.
2
Western scientific method has evolved since the Enlightenment to a point where from the
mid-nineteenth century onwards results be deemed rigorous and acceptable only by
following its procedures. In these assessments such demands have been taken to a new
level.
Scientific method is taken to involve a sequential process involving: definition of the
question, observation, formulation of hypotheses, experimentation and data collection,
analysis, interpretation and conclusions, publication, retesting. Individual bias or
preference is eliminated by the public nature of ‘doing science’: placing the hypothesis,
experimentation, interpretation and conclusions in the public domain; allowing others to
repeat the process to test for fallibility; peer review; encouraging refutation and/or
adaptation.
In the case of an assessment such as the IPCC, the political and economic sensitivities are
such that this methodology is employed not by a single researcher or a single laboratory,
but by as globally broad a sample of climate scientists as possible, from as many
countries as possible and conducted under the scrutiny of governments and the media.
With the possible exception of the experimentation and data collection phases, the other
links in the methodological chain – definition, hypotheses, interpretation and conclusions
– are collective activities conducted in public. Only in this way can the – often
unpalatable – scientific conclusions be placed on the negotiating table as the indisputably
consensus views of the global scientific community.
There may be some variation between global and regional assessments. For example,
governments of neighbouring countries who commission a scientific assessment of an
issue of common concern may be looking mainly for validation of their concerns and
expert advice on policy options, rather than preparing to negotiate policies palatable to
parties with divergent views on where the national interest lies. Nevertheless they are still
likely to require an assessment methodology that can be defended as ‘unbiased’,
‘rigorous’ and based on the ‘best available science’ to counter the inevitable pressures
from domestic and regional vested interests.
It is clear that a global assessment will raise far greater levels of misgiving, criticism and
opposition from vested interests at all levels as compared to a regional assessment. The
IPCC is an example of how such opposition can be neutralized to the extent possible,
such that its findings can form the basis for intergovernmental policy negotiations. It is
salutary to compare the success of the IPCC in this regard with the failure of the GBA
(Global Biodiversity Assessment) carried out under the auspices on UNEP from 1993 to
1995 and intended to provide the scientific basis for policy making under the Convention
on Biological Diversity as it entered into force.
Despite convening a large, representative and authoritative group of scientific experts;
adopting similar procedures for data gathering, analysis, editing and review; and
producing a unique and authoritative assessment, the GBA was de facto rejected by
Parties to the CBD. The cause of this was the failure by UNEP to bring governments on
3
board at the inception of the assessment, thereby not ensuring a binding commitment by
governments to consider the outcomes and subsequently enabling them to characterize
the GBA as nothing more than another of a series of voluntary external inputs to the
Convention process. This was a lesson the future Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
would be obliged to learn when it came to consider how to ensure its conclusions would
be taken account of by the CBD policy making process.
How does this have a bearing on the conceptual framework to be adopted for an
indigenous peoples’ climate change assessment?
As we have seen above, the success or failure assessments intended to place scientific
evidence with potentially unpalatable policy conclusions on the negotiating table process
revolve around perceptions of ‘science’, ‘balance’ and ‘consensus’. The key questions
that an IPCCA needs to address clearly revolve around reservations that will be made
regarding scientific method, review and universality.
According to the western paradigm, phenomena that cannot be positively observed or
measured cannot exist. Thus modern western thought separates what is verifiable and
capable of formulation into universal laws (‘science’) from unverifiable ideas about how
the world operates (‘belief’ or ‘superstition’). One of the clearest examples of this can be
seen in the way that science has become separated from religion. In pre-modern societies
interceding with the divine and healing human sicknesses were one and the same, often
undertaken by a single specialist member of the community.
Traditional knowledge, broadly speaking, operates from a different paradigm. It forms
the basis of an holistic cosmology. The various separations that have come about in
western society over the recent past – science and superstition, healing and intercession
with the divine, rationality and spirituality – are not made. Humanity is perceived as an
integral part of the cosmos, rather than standing outside (and examining) it.
Therefore, from the perspective of the holders of cosmovisions that have not undergone
such separations, it is clearly proper and necessary to honour the animal that allows itself
to be hunted so that you and your community may survive, it goes without saying that the
plants that re-germinate year after year so that you and your family may eat should be
propitiated, there is no mystery about your shaman interceding with spirits in order to
guide the destinies of your village or heal your sick, and if your clans and moieties are
denominated as jaguars or eagles or tortoises this is because their members really are or
are at least descended from jaguars and eagles and tortoises.
The bridges between these epistemologies are few and shaky. Resistance to
acknowledging the validity of other cosmovisions is the norm in western science,
notwithstanding this science derives from Greek, Arabic, Chinese, Indian and other
bodies of knowledge, which in turn derived from prior ‘traditional’ knowledge.
The reality is that it is the western tradition that is deemed to validate the scientific basis
of global policy making. Thus the disconnect between western science and traditional
4
knowledge has potentially serious implications for an initiative such as the IPCCA
designed to introduce the findings of traditional knowledge systems into the international
policy arena on as equal a footing as possible with the findings of western science.
However, in this particular case the gulf may not be as unbridgeable as it can be in other
examples. In the fields of medicine, cosmology or human evolution and dispersal there
are likely to be major conflicting paradigms. In the case of observed impacts of climate
change and implications for cultural survival, there may well be a high degree of
coincidence.
For example, indicators of weather and climate – and thus of climate change over time –
employed by indigenous and traditional communities may include dates of germination
or flowering, timing of migrations, location of nests, rainfall patterns, volumes of melt
water and so on. These are indicators familiar to and employed by scientists in the
western tradition. In some cases it will be possible to argue that the conclusions of
indigenous observations using such indicators can be compared to and validated by
observations and records of western scientists - ornithologists or entomologists, for
example.
In many cases community perceptions of climate change over time, as evidenced by
changes of temperature and rainfall will be able to be validated by official meteorological
records, since all countries keep national data and most will have relevant local data.
The sophisticated adaptation strategies that many indigenous and traditional agricultural
communities have adopted in response to locally observed climate change – for example,
altering the dates or the altitude of planting – can if necessary be replicated in trials by
others, thereby fulfilling one of the methodological requirements of western science.
Although some indicators of climatic conditions employed by indigenous and local
communities may be unacceptable to, or at least have not been investigated by, western
science, there is probably going to be a sufficient level of coincidence between the
categories of indicators used in both traditions such as to endow the assessment with a
level of recognition that will provide the necessary credibility within the UNFCCC
process. The fact that the individual assessments will have been community undertakings
will also endow the overall assessment with considerable political weight within the
process.
In a real sense the IPCCA may be pushing at an open door as the IPCC has identified
local knowledge as an important missing element in its previous assessments and a focus
of its work for its next assessment process. The last report of Working Group II, in its
cross-chapter case studies observed that “recent studies have emerged that explore how
indigenous knowledge can become part of a shared learning effort to address climatechange impacts, mitigation and adaptation, and links with sustainability”.
“Indigenous knowledge is the basis for local-level decision-making in many rural
communities. It has value not only for the culture in which it evolves, but also for
5
scientists and planners striving to improve conditions in rural localities. Incorporating
indigenous knowledge into climate change policies can lead to the development of
effective adaptation strategies that are cost-effective, participatory and sustainable”
(IPCC 4AR, WG II, Cross-chapter case studies, p865, citing Robinson and Herbert,
2001).
At its most recent meeting (April 2008, Budapest), the IPCC recognised that there is an
increasing need for coordinated treatment of adaptation and mitigation within an
integrated sustainable development strategy and the development of regional approaches
to complement the global approach, particularly in assessing the impacts of and
vulnerability to climate change. The IPCC Bureau will decide on how this and other
‘new’ issues will be incorporated into the mandate and functioning of the Working
Groups for the preparation of the fifth assessment due in 2014.
4. Environmental assessment frameworks
The PSR, DPSIR and associated frameworks
All concepts and approaches to environmental assessment seek to link societal pressures
with the status of the environment, and explore response options that might improve
environmental conditions and manage problems while enhancing (or at least not
sacrificing) human well-being. One of the earliest and most commonly used
environmental assessment frameworks is the pressure-state-response (PSR) framework.
This framework links pressures on the environment that result from human activities with
changes in the state (condition) of the environment (land, air, water, etc.). Society then
responds to these changes by instituting environmental and economic programmes and
policies, which feed back to reduce or mitigate the pressures or repair the natural resource
(OECD, 1993). This basic framework has been adopted for environmental reporting by
many OECD countries, as well as by the World Bank, and aspects of it are found in
almost all later environmental assessment conceptual frameworks, including that of the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
The PSR framework was later expanded by the European Environment Agency into the
DPSIR framework (Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses). This framework
adds the concept of driving forces (socio-economic and socio-cultural forces driving
human activities), which increase or mitigate pressures placed by human activities on the
environment. State, or state of the environment, is the condition of the environment.
Impacts are the effects of environmental degradation. Responses refer to the responses by
society to the environmental situation. The DPSIR framework is used to assess and
manage environmental problems, and, because of its circular nature, it can be used to
assess the effectiveness of response measures. Figure 1 explains the DPSIR process.
(http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/dpsir_framework_for_state_of_environment_reporting)
6
Figure 1: The DPSIR process
The DPSIR framework is used by UNEP in the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) and
in country-level State of the Environment reporting. Initiated by UNEP in 1995, a key
aim of the GEO Integrated Environment Assessment (GEO/IEA) is to influence decisionmaking at different levels, from national to global. GEO objectives are, inter alia, to
facilitate the production of accessible, but scientifically relevant environmental
information to policymakers, and to increase the capacity of governments to use
environmental information for decision-making and action planning for sustainable
development. The GEO/IEA methodology facilitates wide participation and cooperation
among stakeholders at different levels.
7
The GEO process builds on the concept that assessment and reporting are not goals as
such, but tools critical to effective environmental management. By using the DPSIR
framework, the GEO process produces the GEO report series and other materials,
including data tools for environmental decision-making. The GEO methodology
facilitates the integration of the widest possible range of social, economic, political and
cultural pressures, and root causes affecting the state of the environment and
environmental trends. Every attempt is made to identify cases of state and trends resulting
from a combination of pressures, and if possible, to discuss the degree to which each
pressure impacts the environment and human health. The assessment evaluates changes
in the state of the environment that impact the sustainability of ecosystems and human
well-being. An analysis of the effectiveness of policy responses -- for example
multilateral environmental agreements -- is a vital part of GEO methodology. Scenarios
are used to explore the environmental outlook2.
The Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) also used an application of the
DPSIR framework. The UNEP-led GIWA project pulled together 1,500 scientists and
other experts in an assessment of national and international shallow water seas and
watersheds. The GIWA version of the DPSIR framework was called “Causal Chain
Analysis”. Causal Chain Analysis traces the cause-effect pathways from the
socioeconomic and environmental impacts back to its root causes. Its purpose in GIWA
was to identify the most important causes of selected problems in international waters in
order to target them by appropriate policy measures for remediation or mitigation 3. These
causes were freshwater shortage, pollution, habitat and community modification,
unsustainable exploitation of fisheries and other living resources, and global change.
Both the GEO and GIWA processes, as well as other DPSIR assessments, have in
common an analysis of the societal and cultural root causes of environmental
degradation. A clear understanding of these causes is seen as an important step in
developing solutions for environmental problems and for prioritizing remedial action.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) assessed the consequences of ecosystem
change for human well-being. From 2001 to 2005, the MA involved the work of more
than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings provide a state-of-the-art scientific
appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they
provide, as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them sustainably.
The MA incorporated working groups on condition and trends, scenarios, responses, and
sub-global assessments4.
2
http://www.who.int/heli/tools/geoassess/en/index.html and http://www.unep.org/geo/
Belausteguigoitia, J.C. (2004) Causal Chain Analysis and Root Causes: The GIWA Approach. Ambio vol.
33, Issue 1, pp: 7-12. http://ambio.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1639%2F00447447(2004)033%5B0007%3ACCAARC%5D2.0.CO%3B2
3
4
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx
8
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) conceptual framework has many
commonalities with the DPSIR framework. The MA framework includes both indirect
and direct drivers of change, the equivalent of driving forces and pressures in the DPSIR
framework. Both also consider the state of the environment and human societies in their
analyses.
The MA conceptual framework is unique in that it places human well-being as the central
focus for assessment while recognizing that biodiversity and ecosystems also have
intrinsic value and that people take decisions concerning ecosystems based on
considerations of both well-being and intrinsic value. The MA conceptual framework
assumes that a dynamic interaction exists between people and ecosystems, with the
changing human condition serving to both directly and indirectly drive change in
ecosystems and with changes in ecosystems causing changes in human well-being. At the
same time, many other factors independent of the environment change the human
condition, and many natural forces influence ecosystems.
Unlike the DPSIR framework, the MA conceptual framework also explicitly recognizes
the complex spatial and temporal dimensions of the interactions between humans and
their environment. The MA conceptual framework cuts across spatial dimensions from
local to global and across temporal dimensions from the recent past to projections into the
next century. In this context, the MA included global, sub-global and local-level
assessments and scenarios for the future.
The conceptual framework was designed to address a set of core questions developed
through extensive interaction with users of the MA, including international conventions,
national governments, the private sector, and civil society. Stakeholder involvement in
the assessment process was one of the key components of the MA and contributed to its
success. The five core questions can be seen in Box 1.
9
Box 1: Overarching questions guiding the MA assessment design
Five overarching questions, along with the detailed lists of user needs provided by convention
secretariats and the private sector, guided the issues addressed by the MA:
1. What are the current conditions and trends of ecosystems and their associated human
well-being?
o What ecosystems make what contributions to human well-being?
o How have ecosystems changed in the past and how has this increased or reduced
their capacity to contribute to human well-being?
- What thresholds, regime shifts, or irreversible changes have been observed?
- What were the most critical factors affecting the observed changes?
- What are the costs, benefits, and risks of the observed changes in ecosystems,
and how have these affected different sectors of society and different regions?
2. What are the plausible future changes in ecosystems and in the supply of and demand for
ecosystem services and the consequent changes in health, livelihood, security, and other
constituents of well-being?
o Under what circumstances are thresholds encountered or are regime shifts or
irreversible changes likely to occur?
o What are the most critical drivers and factors affecting future changes?
o What are the costs, benefits, and risks of plausible future human-induced changes in
ecosystems, and how will these affect different sectors of society and different
regions?
3. What can we do to enhance well-being and conserve ecosystems? What are the strengths
and weaknesses of response options, actions, and processes that can be considered to
realize or avoid specific futures?
o What are the trade-off implications of the response options?
o How does inertia in the social and natural systems affect management decisions?
4. What are the most robust findings and key uncertainties that affect provision of
ecosystem services (including the consequent changes in health, livelihood, and security)
and other management decisions and policy formulations?
5. What tools and methodologies developed and used in the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment can strengthen capacity to assess ecosystems, the services they provide, their
impacts on human well-being, and the implications of response options?
The MA conceptual framework is shown in figure 2. The figure lists the issues addressed
in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and illustrates their interrelationships. It
cannot, of course, portray the complexity of these interactions in their temporal and
spatial domains. In particular, the apparent linearity of the relationships between elements
of the figure does not fully capture the complex interactions that can occur among them.
Given these caveats, the figure and the issues it includes capture the essence of the
approach of the MA and provide a framework for structuring the work of the MA.
Human well-being and poverty reduction are indicated in the upper left hand box of the
conceptual framework diagram. They are placed in this central location to emphasize the
primary focus of these issues to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
10
The MA conceptual framework is designed to assess the consequences of changes in
ecosystems for human well-being. It assumes that the central components of human wellbeing —including health, the material minimum for a good life, freedom and choice,
health, good social relations, and security—can be linked to the status of the
environment. By depicting a closed loop between its major boxes, figure 2 reflects the
existence of feedbacks within the system. In the course of time, indirect drivers are
changed not only by long-term general trends, but even more by people’s and society’s
strategies to cope with changing ecosystems in order to maintain well-being. The arrows
among the principal contextual boxes of the figure indicate the causal interactions among
the components of the system and the general directions of the interactions. The arrows
present simplified “if-then” relationships among components: for example, if there is a
change in a direct driver, then by definition there will be a change in the ecosystem. In
reality, of course, the interactions and their directions are much more complex than
depicted.
Figure 2: The MA conceptual framework. Changes in factors that indirectly affect
ecosystems, such as population, technology, and lifestyle (upper right corner of figure),
can lead to changes in factors directly affecting ecosystems, such as the catch of fisheries
11
or the application of fertilizers to increase food production (lower right corner). The
resulting changes in the ecosystem (lower left corner) cause the ecosystem services to
change and thereby affect human well-being. These interactions can take place at more
than one scale and can cross scales. For example, a global market may lead to regional
loss of forest cover, which increases flood magnitude along a local stretch of a river.
Similarly, the interactions can take place across different time scales. Actions can be
taken either to respond to negative changes or to enhance positive changes at almost all
points in this framework (black cross bars).
By incorporating feedback loops, the MA conceptual framework extends the PSIR and
DPSIR frameworks into a more dynamic system in which environmental changes (the
impacts) can change the human condition and thereby change the pressures. The MA
conceptual framework also explicitly incorporates multiscale considerations. It differs
from a standard EIA framework in that places ecosystems and the environment in a
central role in the effort to reach development goals5.
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD) report
The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD)6 is a three-year collaborative effort (2005 - 2007) that assesses agricultural
knowledge, science and technology in terms of how they meet the development and
sustainability goals of reducing hunger and poverty; improving nutrition, health and rural
livelihoods; and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. The IAASTD is an
intergovernmental process, under the co-sponsorship of the FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP,
UNESCO, the World Bank and WHO and its governing Bureau also includes 30 civil
society representatives. Governments formally agreed to the report at an
Intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg, South Africa, in April 2008.
The IAASTD’s conceptual framework assesses both formal science and technology and
local and traditional knowledge, recognizing that multiple perspectives exist on the role
and natures of agricultural knowledge. Agriculture is characterized as having multiple
functions in terms of sustaining economic, environmental, social and cultural goals, and
producing multiple outputs, including ecosystem services, landscape amenities and
cultural heritage, in addition to the traditional commodities of food, fodder, fibres and
biofuels.
The IAASTD is composed of one Global Assessment and five Regional Assessments, all
of which are peer-reviewed and use the same basic framework related to the overall
purpose. The five regions addressed are Central, West and North Africa; East, South Asia
and the Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean; North America and Europe; and subSaharan Africa. Different teams prepared the regional assessments simultaneously with
5
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for
Assessment. Island Press. 212 p. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.aspx
6
http://www.agassessment.org/
12
the Global Assessment. A separate Synthesis Report combines the major points of all of
the reports and highlights findings from crosscutting thematic issues, one of which is
climate change. The Executive Summary of the synthesis report is currently available,
with the full report including figures and references still awaiting publication.
5. Climate change impact assessment frameworks
A number of assessments concentrate specifically on the impacts of climate change on
the environment and societies. Of these, the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are considered the most authoritative global assessment
reports due to the large number of scientists and governments involved, as well as the
degree to which they directly influence policy. These assessments incorporate some
mention of traditional knowledge, limited mainly to sections of the Working Group II
report7. On the regional level, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) has a sound
scientific basis and incorporates traditional knowledge to an unprecedented degree. Both
of these assessments are reviewed below.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate
change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not
conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to
assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific,
technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected
impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with
respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific,
technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical
standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.8
The IPCC continues to be a major source of information for the negotiations under the
UNFCCC. Further information about the UNFCCC process can be found in Annex 2.
The IPCC published its first assessment report in 1990, a supplementary report in 1992, a
second assessment report (SAR) in 1995, and a third assessment report (TAR) in 2001. A
fourth assessment report (AR4) was released in 2007. Each assessment report is in three
volumes, corresponding to Working Groups I, II and III. The Working Group I report
covers the scientific basis of climate change; Working Group II deals with impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability, while Working Group III reports on mitigation. A synthesis
report is also produced. The assessment reports are based on a survey of all published
literature, including non-English language and ‘grey’ literature such as government and
NGO reports.
7
For a summary see: Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson,
Eds., 2007: Cross-chapter case study. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 843-868.
8
www.ipcc.ch
13
The present document is mainly concerned with the Working Group II report, which is
the most relevant to indigenous assessments of climate change. This report addresses,
inter alia, one of the key questions before the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC): What are the potential impacts for societies and ecosystems
of different atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and aerosols that absorb and scatter
sunlight (United Nations, 1992). The report therefore deals with assessments of climate
change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (CCIAV), which are undertaken to
inform decision-making in an environment of uncertainty.
The IPCC does not seek to prescribe a single preferred method for assessing climate
change impacts and adaptations, but rather acknowledges a range of methods, some of
which may be more suitable than others to particular tasks, but which yield comparable
results across regions and sectors. (IPCC Technical Guidelines, 1994). Towards this end,
each IPCC assessment report reviews a large number of methods and tools pertaining to
specific sectors, scales of analysis, and environmental and socioeconomic contexts that
are available for assessing impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change. Each
of the IPCC reports presents an update on methodological advances.
The Working Group 2 report of AR4 defines several approaches for CCIAV. An
approach is defined by the IPCC as the overall scope and direction of an assessment,
which can accommodate a variety of different methods (systematic processes of
analysis). The five approaches to CCIAV include impact assessment, adaptation
assessment, vulnerability assessment, integrated assessment and risk management.
Factors that distinguish a particular approach include the purpose of the assessment, its
focus, the methods available, and how uncertainty is managed. A major aim of CCIAV
assessment approaches is to manage, rather than overcome, uncertainty, and each
approach has its strengths and weaknesses in that regard. Another important trend has
been to move away from research-driven agendas to assessments tailored towards
decision-making, where decision-makers and stakeholders either participate in or drive
the assessment.
The standard approach to assessment has been the climate scenario-driven ‘impact
approach’, developed from the seven-step assessment framework of IPCC (1994). This
framework includes the following components:
1. Definition of the problem
2. Selection of the method
3. Testing the method
4. Selection of scenarios
5. Assessment of biophysical and socio-economic impacts
6. Assessment of autonomous adjustments
7. Evaluation of adaptation strategies
This approach, which dominated the CCIAV literature described in the first three IPCC
reports, aims to evaluate the likely impacts of climate change under a given scenario and
14
to assess the need for adaptation and/or mitigation to reduce any resulting vulnerability to
climate risks.
Vulnerability to climate change has been defined by the IPCC as "the degree to which a
system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and extremes." Vulnerability is a function of:
o The magnitude, character and rate of climate change
o The sensitivity of the system, i.e. the degree to which the system is adversely or
beneficially affected by climate-related stimuli
o The adaptive capacity of the system, i.e. the system's ability to adjust to climate
change, to moderate or cope with the impacts, and to take advantages of the
opportunities (IPCC, 2001).
Vulnerability is highly dependent on context and scale, and has inherent uncertainties, all
of which should be clearly described in any assessment. While formal methods for
vulnerability assessments are still preliminary, assessment frameworks should be able to
integrate the social and biophysical dimensions of vulnerability to climate change, as well
as adaptive capacity (IPCC AR4). Vulnerability assessment offers a framework for policy
measures that focus on social aspects, including poverty reduction, diversification of
livelihoods, protection of common property resources and strengthening of collective
action (O’Brien et al., 2004b). Such measures enhance the ability to respond to stressors
and secure livelihoods under present conditions, which can also reduce vulnerability to
future climate change. Community-based interactive approaches for identifying coping
potentials provide insights into the underlying causes and structures that shape
vulnerability (O’Brien et al., 2004b).
Adaptation is defined by the IPCC as the adjustment in natural or human systems in
response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or
exploits beneficial opportunities. An adaptation assessment focuses on risk management
by examining the adaptive capacity and adaptation measures required to improve the
resilience or robustness of a system exposed to climate change.
The IPCC AR4 notes that significant advances in adaptation assessment have occurred,
shifting its emphasis from a research-driven activity to one where stakeholders participate
in order to improve decision-making. The key advance is the incorporation of adaptation
to past and present climate. This has the advantage of anchoring the assessment in what is
already known, and can be used to explore adaptation to climate variability and extremes,
especially if scenarios of future variability are uncertain or unavailable (Mirza, 2003b;
UNDP, 2005). As such, adaptation assessment has accommodated a wide range of
methods used in mainstream policy and planning. AR4 also notes that Indigenous
knowledge studies are a valuable source of information for CCIAV assessments,
especially where formally collected and recorded data are sparse (Huntington and Fox,
2005).
A combined vulnerability and adaptation assessment may be well suited for use by
indigenous and local communities, and might incorporate historical coping strategies to
15
climate extremes. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) described in the next
section provides an interesting conceptual model for jointly assessing adaptive capacity
(resilience) and vulnerability. This model conforms to the methodological guidance
provided by the IPCC AR4.
The other assessment types described by IPPC AR4 are integrated assessment and risk
assessment. An integrated assessment includes integrated assessment modelling and other
procedures for investigating CCIAV across disciplines, sectors and scales, and
representing key interactions and feedbacks (e.g., Toth et al., 2003a, b). Risk assessment
generally measures risk as a combination of the probability of an event and its
consequences (ISO/IEC, 2002). Risk management is defined as the culture, processes and
structures directed towards realizing potential opportunities whilst managing adverse
effects (AS/NZS, 2004). While these two assessment types will offer relevant lessons,
methods and tools, they rely heavily on quantitative information and may not be as
relevant for use by indigenous and local communities, whose main concerns likely relate
to vulnerability and adaptation.
In addition to providing information and guidance on different types of assessments, the
IPCC assessment reports incorporate language and definitions that might be kept in mind
in the context of the planned indigenous climate impact assessments. For example, the
IPCC recognizes that its reports are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. The IPCC
has developed guidelines for assessing the degree of uncertainty attached to conclusions
of the reports. A set of terms to describe uncertainties in current knowledge is common to
all parts of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Similarly terminology is available for
the degree of confidence in major statements in the assessment reports, as well as for the
likelihood of occurrence of certain outcomes. This standard terminology provides the
reader with a uniform way to judge the degree of uncertainty associated with the reports.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) was an international project of the Arctic
Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), to evaluate and
synthesize knowledge on climate variability, climate change, and increased ultraviolet
radiation and their consequences. The results of the assessment were released at the
ACIA International Scientific Symposium held in Reykjavik, Iceland in November
20049.
The 1042-page scientific report provides and assessment of climate change as it relates to
Arctic climate and various Arctic ecosystems. Importantly, it also includes a chapter on
indigenous perspectives of the changing Arctic (chapter 3). This chapter compiles
knowledge gathered by existing projects and studies on indigenous knowledge and
climate changes. The chapter presents a number of illustrative case studies, the formats of
which vary greatly and reflect the type of material gathered and the way in which the
9
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
16
study was conducted. A map-based standardized summary of observations by different
communities in the Arctic is also presented.
The case studies of indigenous observations and perspectives offer great insights not only
in terms of the nature and extent of environmental change, but also in terms of the
significance of such change for those peoples whose cultures are built on an intimate
connection with the arctic landscape. The case studies each attempt to convey the sense
of how climate change is seen, not in the form of aggregate statistics or general trends,
but in specific terms for particular individuals and communities. The case studies provide
the basis for a discussion of resilience, or protecting options to increase the capacity of
arctic societies to deal with future change and a review of further research needs.
In this context, the reports notes that in making use of indigenous knowledge, several of
its characteristics should be kept in mind. It is typically qualitative rather than
quantitative, does not explicitly address uncertainty, and is more likely to be based on
observations over a long period than on comparisons of observations taken at the same
time in different locations. Identifying mechanisms of change can be particularly
difficult. It is also important to note that indigenous knowledge refers to the variety of
knowledge systems in the various cultures of the Arctic and is not merely another
discipline or method for studying arctic climate.
In a chapter relating to climate change in the context of multiple stressors and resilience
(chapter 17) the ACIA report may offer a useful conceptual framework for undertaking a
vulnerability assessment that is in keeping with the general guidance of the IPCC. This
vulnerability assessment offers a way of conceptualizing interacting stresses and their
implications for particular human–environment systems, and may thus be useful for
community-based assessments. The ACIA uses definitions of vulnerability and its
elements (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity) that were adopted in the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The conceptual framework for the assessment is based on the work of Timmerman
(1981), which provided the intellectual underpinning for linking the concepts of
vulnerability, resilience, and climate change. Examples of recent projects that incorporate
these perspectives include the IPCC (particularly the contribution of Working Group II to
the Third Scientific Assessment), the Assessments of Impacts of and Adaptation to
Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors (AIACC) implemented by UNEP, the
Finnish global change research projects FIGARE and SILMU, the European Commission
project on Tundra Degradation in the Russian Arctic (TUNDRA), the Norwegian project
NORKLIMA, the US National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the United
States (NAST,2000), and the Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) Program under
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Smith, 2000).
Building on this work, the ACIA report approached the issue of vulnerability through the
questions in Box 2.
17
Box 2: Questions underpinning Arctic vulnerability assessment
1. How do social and biophysical conditions of human–environment systems in the
Arctic influence the resilience of these systems when they are impacted by
climate and other stressors?
2. How can the coupled condition of these systems be suitably characterized for
analysis within a vulnerability framework?
3. To what stresses and combinations of stresses are coupled human–environment
systems in the Arctic most vulnerable?
4. To what degree can mitigation and enhanced adaptation at local, regional,
national, and global scales reduce vulnerabilities in these systems?
The answers to these questions require a holistic research approach that addresses the
interconnected and multiscale character of natural and social systems. A framework for
this approach was developed by Turner et al (2003) and can be seen in figure 3. This
framework provides a means of conceptualizing the vulnerability of coupled human–
environment systems, under alterations in social and biophysical conditions arising from
and interacting across global, regional, and local levels.
Figure 3: Vulnerability framework (Turner et al., 2003)
18
The multiple and linked scales in each diagram are reflected in the nesting of different
colours with blue (place), pink (region), and green (world). The place (whatever its
spatial dimensions) contains the coupled human–environment system whose vulnerability
is being investigated. Figure 4 presents a more detailed schematic of the place. The
influences (including stresses) acting on the place arise from outside and inside its
borders. However, given the complexity and possible non-linearity of these influences,
their precise character (e.g., kind, magnitude, and sequence) is commonly specific to the
place-based system. This system has certain attributes denoted as human and
environmental conditions. These conditions can interact with one another and can enable
or inhibit certain responses in, for example, the form of coping, adaptation, and impacts.
Negative impacts at various scales result when stresses or perturbations exceed the ability
of the place-based human– environment system to cope or respond. There are a number
of feedbacks and interactions within and around the place-based system and these
dynamics can extend across place-based, regional, and global levels. Impacts and
mitigating and adaptive responses, for example, can modify societal conditions of the
place and/or alter societal and environmental influences within the place and at regional
and global scales.
Figure 4: Details of the exposure, sensitivity, and resilience components of the vulnerability framework
(Turner et al., 2003)
The vulnerability of the coupled human–environment system can be thought of as the
potential for this system to experience adverse impacts, taking into consideration the
system’s resilience. Adverse impacts might arise from phenomena such as climate
change, pollution, and social change. The system’s resilience depends on its ability to
19
counter sources of adverse change and to adapt to and otherwise cope with their
consequences.
This framework has much in common with the DPSIR and Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment conceptual frameworks reviewed earlier. The vulnerability framework
incorporates impacts and responses, and resembles the dynamic nature of the MA
framework in its feedback links between environmental and societal changes. Like the
MA framework, the vulnerability assessment framework also incorporates multiscale
considerations. While generally consistent with these more general frameworks, the
vulnerability analysis framework is unique in exploring the relationship between
resilience, exposure and sensitivity with the aim to inform decisions regarding adaptation
and mitigation when there is a distinct possibility of social and environmental loss.
6. Assessment related to traditional knowledge and climate change
The conceptual frameworks used by the global and regional assessments reviewed above
may not translate directly for use by indigenous and local communities, although the
Millennium Ecosystem Approach conceptual framework has guided a number of locallevel assessments (see the first section of this review). However, much of the work that
has been carried out relating to traditional knowledge and climate change incorporates
aspects of the reviewed conceptual frameworks. For example, like the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, all assessments of indigenous and local communities consider
human-well being as the central component of the assessment. And like the vulnerability
framework of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, many assessments consider
linkages between the vulnerability and resilience of indigenous and local communities,
and the power of traditional knowledge in enhancing their capacity to adapt to climate
change. None of the assessments consider root causes in the manner of the DPSIR
framework.
This section is based on a review of literature, other documents and websites of relevance
to traditional knowledge and climate change, which included local, national and regional
assessments, case studies and related information on climate change and indigenous and
local communities. The full list is presented in the Annex to this document. The list is
still preliminary, and it is expected that it will be augmented with additional assessments
in the future. At the present time, there is a relatively large amount of information
available on assessments undertaken in Arctic areas and Africa. A moderate number of
assessments have also originated from the Pacific Islands, Australia and New Zealand.
Less information at the present time is available about assessments in South and North
America and Asia.
The following text summarizes some key concepts and methodologies of these
assessments, and attempts to show parallels in approach between these local communitybased assessments and the conceptual frameworks of the global assessments.
20
Using the global MA assessment framework as a basis for a local assessment
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) incorporated a number of sub-global
assessments. Although not explicitly focused on climate change, some of these
assessments were undertaken by indigenous and local communities, and incorporated
traditional knowledge to varying degrees. These assessments were intended to meet needs
of decision-makers at the scale at which they are undertaken, strengthen the global
findings with on-the-ground reality, and strengthen the local findings with global
perspectives, data, and models. These assessments not only demonstrate the application
of the global MA conceptual framework at the local level, but also the utilization of local
assessment results by a global process. In particular, two assessments, in Chirripó (Costa
Rica) and Vilcanota (Peru) incorporated traditional knowledge of indigenous and local
communities.
The Local Ecosystem Assessment of the Higher and Middle Chirripó River Sub-basins,
Cabécar Indigenous Territory, Costa Rica, was a user-driven assessment conducted in
large part using the traditional knowledge of the inhabitants of the assessment areas.
Traditionally, this population conserves deeply-rooted ancestral knowledge on the uses of
ecosystems, and lives in a tropical humid forest with dense cover. Their territory is
threatened by timber activities, poaching, pollution, and ecosystem fragmentation due to
the unsustainable agricultural practices of non-indigenous people. The assessment started
by recovering stories and histories from the elders about the habitat, its creation, and the
norms that regulate its use. This knowledge was complemented with scientific literature
and produced a first interpretation of the relation of ecosystems and human well-being
from the Cabécar perspective. The information was validated in community gatherings
convened by elders in other Cabécar communities, resulting in a description of the broad
cosmovision of the Cabécar people10.
The Vilcanota Sub-regional assessment (Peru) aimed to assess the state of the ecosystem
in the Vilcanota sub-region of the Peruvian Andes, which is subjected to an increasing
intensity of global dynamics and drivers of ecosystem change, such as mass tourism and
mining. The assessment was undertaken by the International Center of Traditional
Knowledge, Ecology, and Policies (CICTEP), which is a project of the Asociación
ANDES, a community-based Quechua-Aymara organization working on conservation
and livelihoods promotion in the Andes region. CICTEP worked closely with the
Ausangate Community Association (a community organization of Ausangate sub-region
associated to ANDES) made up of the indigenous communities of Tinqui, Tayancany,
Cotaña, Mahuayani, Pausipanpa, and Anjasi. The assessment considered Cultural
services (spirituality); provisioning services (water, food); supporting services (soil,
primary production). Agrobiodiversity was also assessed11.
10
11
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/SGA.CostaRica.aspx
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/SGA.Peru.aspx
21
Indigenous observations of climate change
A common assessment undertaken with or by indigenous and local communities involves
documenting observations of climate change and its impacts. This type of assessment can
be extremely powerful as local verification of global models or assessments, including
through historical information, and as the basis for developing local adaptation strategies.
These types of observations correspond to the “state” in the PSR framework or the
“environmental condition” in the ACIA vulnerability framework. If the observations
include changes over time, they can also feed into the “impact” portion of the DPSIR
framework. Two examples of these types of observations from the Arctic are described
below.
The Sila-Inuk project is a study of the impacts of climate change in Greenland. The
project is undertaken by Inuit Circumpolar Conference, ICC-Greenland and Kalaallit
Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat, The Association of Fishermen and Hunters in
Greenland, KNAPK. In 2006, field interviews were conducted from Arsuk to Aappilattoq
in South Greenland. Thirteen settlements were visited and 33 persons, hunters, fishermen,
sheep farmers and others, men and women, old and young who have been observing the
weather were interviewed. Preliminary observation on changes in weather, the
environment and species are available. The plan for the project is to get to most areas of
Greenland and to circulate the collected information to the interested parties as well as to
a larger audience12.
In a book called Voices from the Bay, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and the
Nunavut municipality of Sanikilua, a small Inuit community on the Belcher Islands in
Hudson Bay, published a verified collection of ecological change observations, including
those related to climate change. The study covered the large bioregion along the shores of
the James and Hudson bays. Inuit and Cree hunters and elders from over 28 communities
provided the observations in a series of workshops. Published in 1997, this book is an
early and comprehensive study of traditional ecological knowledge in the Arctic13.
Traditional knowledge in forecasting and predicting weather and climate
Another type of assessment seeks to document traditional knowledge of climate, weather
and environment, as well as traditional methods and indicators for forecasting weather.
This type of assessment provides a historical record of climate observation that can be
used together with western science to develop improved understanding of climate,
changes in climate, forecasting and climate models. Traditional indicators are generally
most accurate locally, and can contribute to developing local climate change coping
strategies. These types of assessments can contribute to the “environmental condition”
and “resilience/response” components of the vulnerability framework, and the “state”,
“impact” and “response” components of the DPSIR framework. It should also be possible
to use this information in scenario development. Assessments of traditional climate
12
13
http://www.inuit.org/index.asp?lang=eng&num=261
http://www.carc.org/voices_from_the_bay.php
22
forecasting have been undertaken in several locations around the world, including in the
Pacific, Australia, New Zealand and Africa.
In Samoa, preliminary efforts were made to capture and examine traditional ecological
knowledge and begin assessment programs. A study of weather and climate knowledge
by Lefale served as a first source for historical and baseline data, provided initial insights
into how indigenous communities in Samoa can formulate adaptation and response
strategies, and recognized the need for continued documenting of local indigenous
knowledge (Lefale, 2003). A similar study in Australia has made available on the Internet
seasonal weather calendars, developed over thousands of years by indigenous
communities. The project is a joint effort involving indigenous communities, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), the Bureau of Meteorology, and
Monash University’s Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies (CAIS) and School of
Geography and Environmental Science14.
Before the advent of modern scientific methods of forecasting, the traditional
communities in Kenya were able to observe the behaviour of some animals, birds, insects
and plants and use these to forecast the weather for the coming season. The traditional
forecasters are still the major source of weather and climate information for farm
management in the rural areas. The Drought Monitoring Center in Nairobi started a
project to work with traditional forecasters from Luo, Abasuba, Abaluya and the Akamba
communities to determine the indicators used in parts of Kenya and make an attempt to
establish their scientific interpretations. The communities have mastered the traditional
indicators, which include plants, animals, insects, birds, stars, the moon, the wind the
temperature, clouds and lightning patterns15.
A study by the New Zealand National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research
(NIWA) Māori Research and Development Unit has recently completed a pilot
programme to examine Māori environmental knowledge (MEK) of weather and climate.
Through participatory based interviews and workshops, representatives from the tribal
groups Ngāti Pare (Coromandel) and Te Whānau a Apanui (Eastern Bay of Plenty),
demonstrated an intimate understanding of weather and climate in their respective
localities. Analysis of the key themes from these exchanges revealed three principal
strands of weather and climate knowledge. These include: (i) The naming and
classification of local weather and climate phenomena; (ii) The oral recording of weather
and climate based events and trends; and (iii) The use of environmental indicators to
forecast and predict weather and climate16. An important component of this project was
the development of a matrix linking indicators of change with expected outcomes, as seen
in figure 5. This knowledge was used in making decisions about the timing, safety and
viability of various activities, and can contribute to increasing community resilience to
climate change.
14
http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/about/index.shtml
http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation/adaptation_casestudy.pl?id_project=113
16
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/maori/knowledge
15
23
Figure 5: Matrix linking traditional Maori indicators and expected outcomes.
Using traditional knowledge to develop climate change adaptation and response strategies
A third type of assessment connects indigenous observations of climate and environment
to potential response strategies. By making this linkage explicit, the assessment becomes
conceptually more challenging, connecting exposure to resilience in the vulnerability
framework, and response to state and impact in the DPSIR framework. This type of
assessment is less common than some of those described in the previous sections, but
examples are available from, inter alia, the United States and the Canadian arctic,
The United States Global Change Research Program’s Native Peoples-Native Homelands
(NP-NH) component conducted an assessment of indigenous responses to climate
change. The assessment was part of the larger national assessment Climate Change
Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequence of Climate Variability and
Change published in 2000/2001. The report produced from the smaller study on Native
peoples includes anticipated impacts and adaptation strategies from Indigenous
perspectives across the United States. It represents a starting point from which to build
better strategies based on more comprehensive knowledge, data and perspectives
(Maynard 2001).
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment contains a table adapted from Nickels et al.,
2002) describing indigenous responses to climate change in the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region of Canada’s Northwest Territories. This table, available in figure 6, illustrates a
systematic way of linking observations with effects and response/adaptation strategies.
24
Figure 6: Indigenous responses to climate change in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of
Canada’s Northwest Territories (adapted by the ACIA from Nickels et al., 2002).
Available guidance on local and indigenous climate assessments
Some guidance is available on conducting local-level assessments of climate change. The
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) has developed a guide to
community vulnerability and adaptation assessment and action. This guide outlines the
various steps that will assist in the i
community adaptation strategies to challenges and opportunities (risks) related to climate
change. The CV&A guide is a collection of activities that provides a learning process to
empower local communities to identify, analyse, and develop ways and means of
increasing their local adaptive capacity to current and future challenges and opportunities
related to climate change. This guide is based on the premise that Pacific islanders are
continually adapting to climate change in their daily lives17.
The Climate Witness Toolkit is the result of a process undertaken on Kabara, Fiji, (the
first Climate Witness site in the Pacific) to document local impacts of climate change and
to devise appropriate adaptation measures that local communities can implement
themselves. The methodologies within the toolkit are an adaptation of participatory
techniques WWF South Pacific has used over the years in community resource
conservation and development projects, and are designed to give facilitators a clear sense
of process when trying to illicit information specific to impacts of climate change and
developing appropriate community response. The methodologies include, inter alia,
17
http://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000437_CVAGuideE.pdf
25
mapping, development of a seasonal calendar, time line, animal and plant inventory,
community values, root cause analysis and community action plan18.
Many Strong Voices has produced a Project Design Outline for a Dynamic Assessment
of Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Small Island Developing States.
The document aims to guide and support the development and implementation of a full
assessment of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Small Island Developing
States (SIDS), under the Many Strong Voices (MSV) programme. MSV is a collaborative
programme designed to ensure the well-being, security, and sustainability of coastal
communities in the Arctic and SIDS in the face of climate change. The programme brings
together local, national, and regional stakeholders in the Arctic and SIDS to exchange
knowledge about the climate change challenges facing them19.
On the global level, the 2008 IUCN report on Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and
Climate Change aims to (i) improve understanding of the potential impacts of climate
change on vulnerable communities and cultures and their associated ecosystems; (ii) to
identify further research required to reduce the risks of climate change; and (iii) to
develop appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures, particularly in areas with high
risk of socio-cultural impacts. The report reviews factors related to vulnerability (social
and biophysical vulnerability factors), the potential impacts of climate change on
livelihoods and cultures, and examples of adaptation strategies20.
The Resilience Alliance has developed workbooks as well as a workbook wiki on
assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems. The resilience workbook
wiki is a collaborative project involving researchers and practitioners engaged in natural
resource management who seek a holistic approach to managing social-ecological
systems for long-term sustainability. The workbook wiki is aimed at those who have
experience applying resilience concepts to social-ecological systems and who want to
share their knowledge by contributing to the on-going development of the resilience
assessment guide21.
7. Towards an indigenous peoples’ assessment of climate change
The assessment frameworks reviewed in this paper are generally consistent with each
other, though increasingly complex and specialized when used to address interconnected
human–environment systems subjected to multiple stressors. The vulnerability
assessment framework of the ACIA is possibly the conceptual framework most directly
useful to an indigenous assessment relating to resilience, adaptation and vulnerability to
climate change, though it may not translate directly to use by communities. This
framework would likely need to be modified to take into account the special
circumstances, as well as spiritual and cultural values, of indigenous and local
18
http://www.wwfpacific.org.fj/publications/climate_change/cw_toolkit.pdf
www.manystrongvoices.org
20
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/indigenous_peoples_climate_change.pdf
21
http://wiki.resalliance.org/index.php/Main_Page
19
26
communities. A draft modification of the framework is presented in the next section of
this document, as a basis for further discussion.
Regardless of which type of assessment framework is used, it is important for indigenous
peoples themselves to gain an understanding of the ways in which they are resilient and
the ways in which they are vulnerable to climate change. This understanding is an
essential starting point in determining how they will respond to the challenges posed by
climate change. To date, little has been done to connect indigenous perspectives and
observations to potential response or adaptation strategies, and a framework for
indigenous climate assessment may wish to explore this linkage.
The issue of peer review needs special attention as well. Scientific assessments are
generally verified through an extensive peer review process. For example, the assessment
reports of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the IPCC underwent extensive peer
review by governments and experts. In the case of a community-based assessment, the
review of documented information by the communities concerned is a crucial step in
establishing whether the information contained in reports about indigenous and local
knowledge reliably reflects community perspectives. This step of community review
offers a similar degree of confidence to that provided by the peer-review process for
scientific literature.
27
ANNEX 1
A list of assessments and related information of relevance to indigenous and local
communities and climate change
UN Documents and global assessments
Global Environment Outlook: http://www.unep.org/geo/
Global International Waters Assessment: http://www.unep.org/dewa/giwa/
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group
II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.
Summary for Policy Makers. Brussels, Belgium.
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD): http://www.agassessment.org
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/
UNDP's Regional Initiative on Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Development (e.g.
http://regionalcentrebangkok.undp.or.th/practices/governance/ripp/cs.html)
has undertaken regional assessments on climate change and biocultural diversity
UNEP (2007) Global Outlook for Ice and Snow. Division of Early Warning and Assessment,
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), Nairobi, Kenya
General studies and useful references
Agrawal, A. (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge.
Development and Change,26 (3):413–439.
Bioversity International [Collects and collates information on experiences of indigenous
peoples in using agro-biodiversity as part of their response to climate change]
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/
Brown, DA (2003) The importance of expressly examining global warming policy issues
through an ethnical prism - Global Environmental Change 13 pp229-234
Canziani, O.F. and L.J. Mata (2004) The fate of indigenous communities under climate
change. UNFCCC workshop on impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change.
Tenth Session of the Conference of Parties (COP-10), Buenos Aires, 3 pp.
Couzin, J. (2007) Opening doors to native knowledge, Science, Vol. 315, pp. 1518-19.
28
Frame, D. 2007. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change Models. Environmental Change
Institute. University of Oxford. http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/news/events/indigenous/frame.pdf
IUCN (2008) Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/indigenous_peoples_climate_change.pdf
IUCN and IISD (2003) Livelihoods and Climate Change: Combining disaster risk reduction,
natural resource management and climate change adaptation in a new approach to the
reduction of vulnerability and poverty. A Conceptual Framework Paper Prepared by the Task
Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation. Published by the
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?id=529
Johnson, M., Ed., (1992) Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge. Dene
Cultural Institute, Hay River, and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 190 pp.
Leautier, F. (2004) Indigenous capacity enhancement: developing community knowledge.
Indigenous Knowledge: Local Pathways to Global Development. The World Bank, Washington,
District of Columbia, 4-8.
Many Strong Voices: Project Design Outline for a Dynamic Assessment of Vulnerability
and Adaptation to Climate Change in Small Island Developing States.
http://www.manystrongvoices.org/
Mercer, J., I. Kelman, K., Lloyd, and S. Suchet (2008) Reflections on Use of Participatory
Research for Disaster Risk Reduction. Area, in press
Minority Rights Group International (2008) State of the World's Minorities 2008. Minority
Rights Group International, London, U.K.
On the Frontlines of Climate Change: A forum for indigenous peoples, small islands and
vulnerable communities. UNESCO LINKS programme.
http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.phpURL_ID=1945&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues - Seventh session (2008) Inter-Agency Support Group on
Indigenous Peoples’ Issues. Collated Paper on Indigenous Peoples And Climate Change.
E/C.19/2008/CRP. 2. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/E_C19_2008_CRP.2.doc
Reid, W.V., F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks and D. Capistrano, Eds. (2006) Bridging Scales and
Knowledge Systems. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, 314 pp.
The Resilience Alliance (2007) Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological
systems: A practitioners workbook. Volume 1, version 1.0.
http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php
The Resilience Alliance (2007) Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: A scientists
workbook. http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php
29
Salick, J., Byg, A. eds., 2007. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change. A Tyndall Centre
Publication. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Oxford.
Stigter, C.J., Z. Dawei, L.O.Z. Onyewotu and M. Xurong (2005) Using traditional methods and
indigenous technologies for coping with climate variability. Climatic Change, 70, 255-271. 74
Turner, B. L., II, P. Matson, J.J. McCarthy ,R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, G.
Hovelsrud-Broda, J.X. Kasperson, R.E. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, S. Mathiesen, R.
Naylor, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, A. Schiller, H.S elin and N.Tyler (2003) Illustrating the
coupled human-environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three Case Studies.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,100:8080–8085.
Twinomugisha, B. (2005) Indigenous adaptation. Tiempo, 57, 6-8.
UNFCCC (2007) Database on local coping strategies.
http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation/
Watt-Cloutier, Sheila (2004) Climate Change and Human Rights—Human Rights Dialogue:
Environmental Rights. Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs (Spring)
http://www.cceia.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_11/section_1/4445.html
Arctic region
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Scientific Assessment. Note Chapter 3 titled
"Changing Arctic: Indigenous Perspectives" (pp. 61-98). Downloadable from
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/scientific.html. See also: Huntington, H., S. Fox and Co-authors,
2005: The changing Arctic: Indigenous perspectives. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, C.
Symon, L.Arris and B.Heal, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 61-98.
Ashford, G. and J. Castleden (2001) Inuit Observations on Climate Change. Final Report
International Institute for Sustainable Development. June 2001.
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/inuit_final_report.pdf
Bielawski, E. (1992) “Inuit Indigenous Knowledge and Science in the Arctic.” Northern
Perspectives 20 (1).
The Bering Sea Sub-Network (BSSN) - Community-based environmental monitoring
http://www.bssn.net/NewsArticles/BSSNTheBeringSea.html
Berkes, F., 1999: Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource
Management. Taylor and Francis, London, 232 pp.
Berkes, F. and D. Jolly, 2001: Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a
Canadian Western Arctic Community. Conserv. Ecol., 5, 18.
Berkes,F.,J.Colding and C.Folke (eds.) (2003) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building
Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press
30
Berkes,F.,J.Colding and C.Folke (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as
adaptive management. Ecological Applications,10(5):1251–1262.
Centre for Saami Studies, University of Tromsø. http://www.sami.uit.no/indexen.html.
(Contains publications and a searchable database of Sami and Indigenous research)
Community Adaptation and Sustainable Livelihoods – Inuit Observations on Climate Change
Project. http://www.iisd.org/casl/projects/inuitobs.htm. Includes trip reports and video.
Community of Arctic Bay, 2005: Inuit Observations on Climate and Environmental Change:
Perspectives from Arctic Bay, Nunavut. ITK, Nasivvik, NAHO, NTI, Ottawa, 57 pp.
Cruikshank, J. (2001) “Glaciers and Climate Change: Perspectives from Oral Tradition.”
Arctic 54 (4): 377-393.
George, J.C., H.P. Huntington, K. Brewster, H. Eicken, D.W. Norton and R. Glenn, 2004:
Observations on shorefast ice dynamics in arctic Alaska and the responses of the Inupiat
hunting community. Arctic, 57, 363-374
Dene Nation (2002) The Denendeh Environmental Working Group: Climate Change
Workshop. www.denenation.com]
Dene Nation (2003) Report of the Second Denendeh Environmental Working Group:
Climate Change and Forests Workshop. www.denenation.com
Ealát Project - an initiative to look at the vulnerabilities of reindeer herders, and conduct
research on how herders might adapt to climate change
http://arcticportal.org/en/icr/ealat
ECORA project - using an integrated ecosystem management (IEM) approach to conserve
biodiversity and minimize habitat fragmentation in three selected model areas in the Russian
Arctic.
http://www.grida.no/ecora/
Fenge, T. (2001) "The Inuit and Climate Change" Isuma Canadian Journal of Policy Research
2 (4: Winter)
Ferguson,M.A.D.,R.G.Williamson and F.Messier (1998) Inuit knowledge of long-term changes
in a population of Arctic tundra caribou.Arctic,51(3):201–219.pp.302–309.
Ferguson,M.A.D.and F.Messier (1997) Collection and analysis of traditional ecological
knowledge about a population of arctic tundra caribou.Arctic,50(1):17–28.
Fienup-Riordan,A.,W.Tyson,P.John,M.Meade and J.Active (2000) Hunting Tradition in a
Changing World. Rutgers University Press, xx +310p.
Folke,C.,S.Carpenter,T.Elmqvist,L.Gunderson,C.S.Holling,B.Walker,J.Bengtsson,F.Berkes,J.Col
ding,K.Danell, M.Falkenmark,L.Gordon,R.Kasperson,N.Kautsky,A.Kinzig, S.Levin,K.G.Maler,F.Moberg,L.Ohlsson,P.Olsson,E. Ostrom,W.Reid,J.Rockstrom,H.Savenije and U.Svedin
(2002) Resilience for Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of
31
Transformations. Environmental Advisory Council, Ministry of the Environment,
Stockholm,74p.
Ford, J. and B. Smit (2004) A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the
Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arctic, 57, 389-400.
Ford, J., B. Smit and J. Wandel, (2006) Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: A case
study from Arctic Bay, Nunavut. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 145-160.
Fox, S. (2003) When the Weather is Uggianaqtuq: Inuit Observations of Environmental
Change. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder, Colorado:
University of Colorado, CD-ROM.
Freeman,M.M.R.and L.N.Carbyn (eds.) (1988) Traditional Knowledge and Renewable
Resource Management in Northern Regions. Boreal Institute for Northern
Studies,Alberta,124p.
Furgal, C.M., D. Martin, P. Gosselin, A. Viau, Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social
Services (NRBHSS) and Labrador Inuit Association (LIA) (2002) Climate change in Lunavik
and Labrador: what we know from science and Inuit ecological knowledge. Final Report
prepared for Climate Change Action Fund, WHO/PAHO Collaborating Center on Environmental
and Occupational Health Impact Assessment and Surveillance, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire
de Quebec (CHUQ), Beauport, Quebec, 141 pp
Furgal, C.M., C. Fletcher and C. Dickson (2006) Ways of knowing and understanding:
towards the convergence of traditional and scientific understanding of climate change in the
Canadian North. Environment Canada, No. KM467-056213, 96 pp.
Gaski, H.(ed.) (1997) Sami culture in a new era: the Norwegian Sami experience. Davvi
Girji,Karasjok,Norway,223p.
GN (2001) Inuit Qaujimajangit Hilap Alanguminganut/Inuit Knowledge of Climate Change: A
Sample of Inuit Experiences of Climate Change in Nunavut. Baker Lake and Arviat,Nunavut.
January–March 2001.Government of Nunavut, Department of Sustainable Development,
Environmental Protection Services
Hovelsrud, G. K., M. McKenna and H.P. Huntington, Marine mammal harvests and other
interactions with humans.
http://www.esajournals.org/perlserv/?request=resloc&uri=urn%3Aap%3Apdf%3Adoi%3A10.1890%2F06-0843.1
Huntington, H., 1998: Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for
documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic, 51, 237-242.
Huntington, H.P. (ed.). Impacts of Changes in Sea Ice and other Environmental Parameters
in the Arctic. Marine Mammal Commission, Maryland.
Huntington, H., T.V. Callaghan, S. Fox and I. Krupnik, 2004: Matching traditional and
scientific observations to detect environmental change: a discussion on arctic terrestrial
ecosystems. Ambio, 33(S13), 18-23
32
Ingold,T. and T.Kurtilla (2000) Perceiving the environment in Finnish Lapland. Body and
Society,6(3–4):183–196.
Inuit Circumpolar Conference http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=1&Lang=En
Jolly, D., S. Fox and N. Thorpe (2003) Inuit and Inuvialuit knowledge of climate change.
In:J.Oakes,R.Riewe,K.Wilde,A.Edmunds and A.Dubois,(eds.),pp.280–290.Native Voices in
Research. Aboriginal Issues Press
Krupnik, I and D. Jolly (eds.). The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic
Environmental Change,
contains a number of relevant studies, e.g.
o Kofinas, G., 2002. Community contributions to ecological monitoring:
knowledge co-production in the US-Canada Arctic borderlands.
o Jolly, D., F. Berkes, J. Castleden, T. Nichols and the Community of Sachs
Harbour, 2002. We can’t predict the weather like we used to. Inuvialuit
observations of climate change, Sachs Harbour, western Canadian Arctic.
o Thorpe, T., S. Eyegetok, N. Hakongak and the Kitikmeot Elders, 2002.
Nowadays it is not the same: Inuit Qaumjimajatuqangit, climate and caribou in
the Kitikmeot Region of Nunavut, Canada
Krupnik, I., Ray, G.C., (2007) Pacific walruses, indigenous hunters, and climate change:
Bridging scientific and indigenous knowledge. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in
Oceanography, 54(23-26): 2946-2957
Lafortune, V., C. Furgal, J. Drouin, T.Annanack, N. Einish, B. Etidloie,M. Qiisiq, P. Tookalook
and Co-authors, 2004: Climate change in northern Québec: access to land and resource
issues. Project report. Kativik Regional Government, Kuujjuaq, Québec.
McKibbon, S. (2000) “Inuit elders say the Arctic climate is changing.” Nunatsiaq News, June
2, 2000, final edition, www.nunatsiaq.com
Mustonen, T. and E.Helander (eds.) (2004) Snowscapes, Dreamscapes: SnowChange book on
community voices of change, pp.302–309.Tampere Polytechnic Institute, Finland.
Nickels, S. ,C.Furgal, J. Castleden, P. Moss-Davies, M. Buell, B. Armstrong, D. Dillion and R.
Fonger (2002) Putting a human face on climate change through community workshops:
Inuit knowledge, partnerships, and research. In: I. Krupnik and D. Jolly (eds.). The Earth is
Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change,pp.300–333.Arctic
Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska.
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Association, Kitikmeot Inuit, and Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs
(2001) Elders’ Conference on Climate Change, Cambridge Bay 2001,March 29–31.Workshop
report,92p.
Nuttall, M. (2001) Indigenous peoples and climate change research in the Arctic, Indigenous
Affairs, Vol. 4, pp. 26-33.
Sila-Inuk project - A Study of The Impacts of Climate Change in Greenland undertaken by
Inuit Circumpolar Conference, ICC-Greenland and Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu
33
Kattuffiat, The Association of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland, KNAPK. See:
http://www.inuit.org/index.asp?lang=eng&num=261
Spitzer, A. (2001) “Elders, hunters offer evidence of warming Arctic.” Nunatsiaq News,
March 16, 2001, final edition, www.nunatsiaq.com
Rankama, T. (1993) Managing the landscape: a study of Sami place names in Utsjoki,
Finnish Lapland. Etudes/Inuit/Studies,17(1):47–67.
Riedlinger, D. (2001) Responding to Climate Change in Northern Communities: Impacts
and Adaptations. I Arctic 54 (1): 96-98.
Riedlinger, D. and F. Berkes, 2001: Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding
climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Rec., 37, 315-328.
Snowchange [working with the various Northern areas and peoples on the topics of ecological,
especially climatic and weather changes from the scientific and traditional knowledge point of
view] www.snowchange.org
Stevenson, M. G. (1996) Indigenous knowledge and environmental assessment. Arctic,
49(3):278–291.
Vlassova, T.K. (2006) Arctic residents’ observations and human impact assessments in
understanding environmental changes in boreal forests: Russian experience and
circumpolar perspectives. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, 897909.
Voices from the Bay: Documenting and Communicating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge
from the Hudson Bay Bioregion. UNESCO Best Practices on Indigenous Knowledge.
http://www.unesco.org/most/bpik21-2.htm and http://www.carc.org/voices_from_the_bay.php
Wall, G. (ed.) (1993) Impacts of Climate Change on Resource Management in the North,
pp.43–49.Department of Geography Publication Series, Occasional Paper No.16.University of
Waterloo, Ontario.
Whiting, A. (2002) Documenting Qikiktagrugmiut knowledge of environmental change.
Native Village of Kotzebue,A laska.
WKSS (West Kitikmeot / Slave Study Society) (2001) West Kitikmeot / Slave Study Society
Final Report. West Kitikmeot / Slave Study Society, Yellowknife, Canada, 87 pp.
http://www.wkss.nt.ca/index.htm
North America
American Indian Institute: http://www.twocircles.org/
Native Peoples / Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop-Summit, 11/01/98,
Albuquerque, NM
http://www.ienearth.org/globalcc
34
Maynard, N., ed. (2001) Circles of Wisdom: Native Peoples-Native Homelands Climate
Change Workshop Final Report. Washington: U.S. Global Climate Research Program.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/native.pdf
Prince Albert Model Forest Aboriginal Caucus: Building Capacity and Improving
Understandings of Environmental Assessment within Saskatchewan's First Nations
Communities http://www.iisd.org/measure/learning/prince_albert/default.asp
American Indigenous Peoples share stories of climate change:
http://www.arcticpeoples.org/2007/05/02/american-indigenous-peoples-share-stories-of-climatechange/
Indian and Northern Affairs, 2007. Adaptation Strategies. URL: www.aincinac.gc.ca/clc/adp/str_e.html
Houser, S., V. Teller, M. MacCracken, R. Gough and P. Spears. 2001: Chapter 12: Potential
consequences of climate variability and change for native peoples and homelands. Climate
Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and
Change, Report for the US Global Change Research Program, U.S. National Assessment
Synthesis Team, Ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,351-377.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/foundation.htm
NRBS (Northern River Basins Study Board) (1996) Northern River Basins Study. Report to the
Ministers 1996. Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, Alberta, 287 pp.
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/water/nrbs/index.html.
Parker, A. et al (2006) Climate Change and the Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations. Northwest
Indian Applied Research Institute (NIARI)
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/IndigClimate2.pdf
Asia
Allen, K.M., 2006: Community-based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: local
capacity building in the Philippines. Disasters, 30, 81-100.
Balancing agriculture and fisheries through sluice gates: Khazans in Goa, India. A UNFCC
case study on local coping strategies.
http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation/adaptation_casestudy.pl?id_project=159
Environmental literacy in interpreting endangered sustainability. Case studies from Thailand
and the Sudan. By Minna Hares, Anu Eskonheimo, Timo Myllyntaus and Olavi Luukkanen
Esengulova, N., A. Japarov and E. Mamytbekov. Community Management of High-Alpine
Grasslands in the Kyrgyz Republic: Social, Economic and Ecological Implications.
http://iasc2008.glos.ac.uk/conference%20papers/papers/E/Esengulova_154401.pdf
35
Hassan, S. (2000) Indigenous Disaster Management Culture: A Comparative Study Between
the Cyclone Affected People of Bangladesh and Japan. ASA 2000 Conference Papers. For
summary see: http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation/adaptation_casestudy.pl?id_project=33
Huq, S. and M.R. Khan (2006) Equity in National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs):
the case of Bangladesh. Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change, W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S.
Huq and M.J. Mace, Eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 131-153. Lorenzoni, I. and N.
Pidgeon, 2006: Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic
Change, 77, 73-95.
Indigenous forecasting in Sri Lanka – A UNFCC case study on local coping strategies.
http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation/adaptation_casestudy.pl?id_project=31
Lasco, R.D. and J.M. Pulhin. Environmental impacts of community-based forest
management in the Philippines. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.01.006
Pinto, A. (2006) The India Case Study: Carbon Sinks, Carbon Trade, the Clean Development
Mechanism, and the Indigenous Peoples of the North-East Region of India. A case study
commissioned by the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests.
http://www.international-alliance.org/documents/Climate%20Change%20-%20India.pdf
Verma, L.R. (1998): Indigenous technology knowledge for watershed management in upper
north-west Himalayas of India. PWMTA Field Document No. 15, Kathmandu: FAO.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5672E/x5672e00.htm
Woodward, A., S. Hales and P.Weinstein, 1998: Climate change and human health in the
Asia-Pacific region: who will be most vulnerable? Climate Res., 11, 31-38.
The Pacific Islands
Aswani, S. and R.J. Hamilton (2004): Integrating indigenous ecological knowledge and
customary sea tenure with marine and social science for conservation of the bumphead
parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) in Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Environ.
Conserv., 31, 69-86.
Barnett, J. (2001) Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island countries: the problem of
uncertainty. World Dev., 29, 977-993.
Cocklin, C., 1999: Islands in the midst: environmental change, vulnerability, and security in
the Pacific. Environmental Change, Adaptation, and Security, S. Lonergan, Ed.,
KluwerAcademic, Dordrecht, 141-159.
Fiu Mataese Elisara-La’ulu (2006) An Assessment of Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation
to Climate Change in Samoa. A case study commissioned by the International Alliance of
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests. http://www.internationalalliance.org/documents/Climate%20Change%20-%20Samoa.pdf
Hoffmann, T.G., 2002: The reimplementation of the Ra’ui: coral reef management in
Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Coast. Manage., 30, 401-418.
36
Hviding, Edvard (2005) Reef and Rainforest: an Environmental Encyclopedia of Marovo
Lagoon, Solomon Islands / Kiladi oro vivineidi ria tingitonga pa idere oro pa goana pa Marovo.
Knowledges of Nature 1, UNESCO: Paris, 252 pp. http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.phpURL_ID=4286&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html See also project description
at http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.phpURL_ID=4989&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
The Independent Television Service (ITVS) (2001) Rising Waters – Islander Perspectives.
http://www.itvs.org/risingwaters/story1.html
Lefale, P. (2003) Indigenous knowledge in the Pacific. Tiempo Climate Cyberlibrary, Issue 49,
September 2003. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/floor0/recent/issue49/t49a1.htm
Mercer, J., D. Dominey-Howes, I. Kelman, and K. Lloyd. (2007) The Potential for Combining
Indigenous and Western Knowledge in Reducing Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards
in Small Island Developing States. Environmental Hazards, 7, 245-256.
MESD (Ministry of Environment and Social Development, Kiribati), 1999: Initial
Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Kiribati Government, Tarawa, Kiribati.
Nakalevu, T. (2006) CV&A: A Guide to Community Vulnerability and Adaptation
Assessment and Action. The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).
http://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000437_CVAGuideE.pdf
Nakalevu, T. et al (2005) Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Community-Level
Adaptation to Climate Change, Suva, Fiji: 21-23 March 2005.
http://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000431_CBDAMPIC.pdf
Parker, A. et al (2006) Climate Change and the Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations.
Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute (NIARI)
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/IndigClimate2.pdf
Sharing Community Stories: The Pacific Climate Change Film Project. Climate Change Film
Festival: 23-24 September 2008, Suva Fiji. Organised by SPREP and the British High
Commission. http://www.sprep.org/climate_change/filmproject/index.asp
Srinivasan, A. (2004) Local Knowledge for Facilitating Adaptation to Climate Change in
Asia and the Pacific: Policy Implications. IGES-CP Working Paper.
http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=151
Sutherland, K., B. Smit, V. Wulf and T. Nakalevu (2005) Vulnerability to climate change and
adaptive capacity in Samoa: the case of Saoluafata village. Tiempo, 54, 11-15.
Thomas, F.R., 2001: Remodelling marine tenure on the atolls: a case study from Western
Kiribati, Micronesia. Hum. Ecol., 29, 399-423.
37
University of South Pacific – Project on Integrated Methods and Models for Assessing
Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Pacific Island Countries.
http://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=429
WWF (2008?) Climate Change and Variability in Tikina Wai, Fiji Islands. A case study.
http://www.wwfpacific.org.fj/publications/climate_change/CC_in_Fiji.pdf
WWF (2006) Climate Witness Community Toolkit. WWF South Pacific Programme.
http://www.wwfpacific.org.fj/publications/climate_change/cw_toolkit.pdf
Australia and New Zealand
Australian Government Department of Meteorology, indigenous communities, Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), the Bureau of Meteorology, and Monash
University’s Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies (CAIS) and School of Geography and
Environmental Science – Indigenous Weather Knowledge Website Project. [Includes
seasonal weather calendars, developed over thousands of years by Indigenous communities.]
http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/about/index.shtml
Braaf, R. (1999) Improving impact assessment methods: climate change and the health of
indigenous Australians. Global Environ. Chang., 9, 95-104.
CSIRO and Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales- Sharing
Knowledge Project. [This project focuses on the impacts and adaptation strategies for
Indigenous Australian communities living in northern Australia.]
http://www.sharingknowledge.net.au/
Ellemor, H., 2005: Reconsidering emergency management and Indigenous communities in
Australia. Environmental Hazards, 6, 1-7.
The Garnaut Climate Change Review (2008) was commissioned by Australia's
Commonwealth, state and territory governments to examine the impacts, challenges and
opportunities of climate change for Australia. [Although general in nature, this report does
highlight the risks to Indigenous health (through disruptions of traditional ways of living in
remote Indigenous communities), and social welfare (for example the reliance of small, remote
indigenous communities on diesel fuel for power supply and transport). The potential
opportunities for Indigenous landowners through large-scale participation of Indigenous lands in
the mitigation effort will be addressed in the final report.] http://www.garnautreview.org.au/
Hill, R., 2004: Yalanji Warranga Kaban: Yalanji People of the Rainforest Fire Management
Book. Little Ramsay Press, Cairns, 110 pp.
38
Lewis, D., 2002: Slower Than the Eye Can See: Environmental Change in Northern
Australia’s Cattle Lands, A Case Study from the Victoria River District,
Northern Territory. Tropical Savannas CRC, Darwin, Northern Territory.
http://savanna.ntu.edu.au/publications/landscape_change.html.
Living on Earth (2006) Cultural Connection.
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00025&segmentID=4
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) New Zealand - Maori Research and
Development Unit. Pilot programme to examine Māori environmental knowledge (MEK) of
weather and climate. See: http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/maori/knowledge
NIWA, 2006: Proceedings of the Second Maori Climate Forum, 24 May 2006,
Hongoeka Marae, Plimmerton. http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/maori/2006-05/. See also
general information on the Maori Climate Forum at
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/maori/forum
NZ Ministry of Environment (2007) Consultation with Māori on Climate Change: Hui
Report. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/consultation-maori-hui-reportnov07/index.html
NZ Ministry of Agriculture and Foresty: Māori and Climate Change.
http://www.maf.govt.nz/climatechange/about/1-4-maori.htm
Orlove, B., 2003: How People Name Seasons, S. Strauss and B. Orlove, Eds., Berg Publishers,
Oxford, 121-141.
South and Central America
Alcántara-Ayala, I., 2004: Flowing mountains in Mexico: incorporating local knowledge and
initiatives to confront disaster and promote prevention. Mt. Res. Dev., 24, 10-13.
Amazon Alliance. [Supports the ecological and cultural vitality of Amazonia by ensuring that
representative organizations of the region’s indigenous peoples have voice and power in all
processes affecting their lands and communities.] http://www.amazonalliance.org/
Bradley, R.S., M. Vuille, H. Diaz and W. Vergara, 2006: Threats to water supplies in the
tropical Andes. Science, 312, 1755-1756.
Carey, M. (2005) Living and dying with glaciers: people’s historical vulnerability to
avalanches and outburst floods in Peru. Global Planet. Change, 47, 122-134.
Hall, G. & Patrinos, A.P. (2004) Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Human Development in
Latin America: 1994-2004. URL:
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/LAC/lacinfoclient.nsf/8d6661f6799ea8a48525673900537f95/
3bb82428dd9dbea785257004007c113d/$FILE/IndigPeoplesPoverty_Exec_Summ_en.pdf
Johnson Hugo Cerda Shiguango (2006) The Ecuador Case Study: Sustainable and Effective
Practices under Guidelines for Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. A case study
39
commissioned by the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests.
http://www.international-alliance.org/documents/Climate%20Change%20-%20Ecuador.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Vilcanota Sub-Region. This assessment is undertaken by
the International Center of Traditional Knowledge, Ecology, and Policies (CICTEP), which is a
project of the Asociación ANDES, a community-based Quechua-Aymara organization working
on conservation and livelihoods promotion in the Andes region.
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/SGA.Peru.aspx
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - Chirripó River Sub-basins, Cabécar Indigenous
Territory, Costa Rica. This user-driven assessment was conducted in large part using the
traditional knowledge of the inhabitants of the assessment areas.
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/SGA.CostaRica.aspx
Orlove, B.S., J.C.H. Chiang and M.A. Cane, 2000: Forecasting Andean rainfall and crop yield
from the influence of El Niño on Pleiades visibility. Nature, 403, 68-71.
Pettenger, M.E. Presence of Mind as Working Climate Change Knowledge: A Totonac
Cosmopolitics [east central Mexico], William D Smith, Ch 10 in "The Social Construction of
Climate Change"
Programa Nacional de Cambios Climaticos Componente Salud, Viceministerio de Medio
Ambiente and Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo Forestal, 2000: Vulnerabilidad y adaptacion de al
salud humana ante los efectos del cambio climatico en Bolivia [Vulnerability and Adaptation
to Protect Human Health from Effects of Climate Change in Bolivia]. Programa Nacional de
Cambios Climaticos Componente Salud, Viceministerio de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales
y Desarrollo Forestal, 111 pp.
World Bank, 2005: Drought in the Amazon: scientific and social aspects. Report of a World
Bank Seminar, December 12, 2005. Brasília, Brazil, 14 pp.
Africa
Ajibade, L.T., 2003: A methodology for the collection and evaluation of farmers’ indigenous
environmental knowledge in developing countries. Indilinga: African Journal of Indigenous
Knowledge Systems, 2, 99-113.
Ajibade, L.T. and O. Shokemi, 2003: Indigenous approaches to weather forecasting in Asa
L.G.A., Kwara State, Nigeria. Indilinga: African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 2,
37-44.
AGRHYMET, 2004: Rapport synthese de l’enquete générale sur les itineraries d’adaptation des
populations locales a la variabilité et aux changements climatiques conduite sur les projets pilotes
par AGRHYMET et l’UQAM, par Hubert N’Djafa Ouaga, 13 pp.
Corbera, E. et al (2006) Climate Change in Africa: Linking Science and Policy for
Adaptation. Workshop Report. The Royal Society, London, March 30th 2006.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/Af_TyndallIIED_Final.pdf
40
Dea, D. and I. Scoones, 2003: Networks of knowledge: how farmers and scientists
understand soils and their fertility: a case study from Ethiopia. Oxford Development Studies,
31, 461-478.
Drought Monitoring Center Nairobi (2004) Traditional indicators used for climate monitoring
and prediction by some rural communities in Kenya. A contribution to the harmonization of
traditional and modern scientific methods of climate prediction in
Kenya. http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/mpe/csi/doc/kenya_indicators.pdf
Easton, P. and M. Roland, 2000: Seeds of life: women and agricultural biodiversity in Africa.
IK Notes 23.World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 4 pp
Eriksen, S., 2004: Building adaptive capacity in a ‘glocal’ world: examples from Norway and
Africa. ESS Bulletin, 2, 18-26.
Eriksen, S. (2005) The role of indigenous plants in household adaptation to climate change:
the Kenyan experience. Climate Change and Africa, P.S Low, Ed., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 248-259.
Gana, F.S., 2003: The usage of indigenous plant materials among small-scale farmers in
Niger state agricultural development project: Nigeria. Indilinga: African Journal of
Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 2, 53-60.
Maundu, P., Berger, D.J., ole Saitabau, C., Nasieku, J., Kipelian, M., Mathenge, S.G., Morimoto,
Y., Höft, R. (2001) Ethnobotany of the Loita Maasai: Towards Community Management of
the Forest of the Lost Child - Experiences from the Loita Ethnobotany Project. People and
Plants working paper 8. UNESCO, Paris. http://peopleandplants.org/webcontent%201/pdf/wp8.pdf
Mutero, C.M., C. Kabutha, V. Kimani, L. Kabuage, G. Gitau, J. Ssennyonga, J. Githure, L.
Muthami, A. Kaida, L. Musyoka, E. Kiarie and M. Oganda (2004) A transdisciplinary
perspective on the links between malaria and agroecosystems in Kenya. Acta Trop., 89, 171186
Mwangi, S. (2002) Indigenous knowledge, policy and institutional issues for collaboration
between mountain adjacent communities and management agencies. Kenya Resource Centre
for Indigenous Knowledge, National Museums of Kenya
Oba, G. (2001) The importance of pastoralists’ indigenous coping strategies for planning
drought management in the arid zone of Kenya. Nomadic Peoples, 5, 89-119.
Patt, A. and C. Gwata, 2002: Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: examining
constraints for subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 185-195.
Patt, A., P. Suarez and C. Gwata, 2005: Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and participatory
workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 1262312628.
Ramphele, M., 2004: Women’s indigenous knowledge: building bridges between the
traditional and the modern. Indigenous Knowledge: Local Pathways to Development, The
World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 13-17.
41
Richards, P. (1986) Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in
West Africa. Hutchinson, London, 192 pp
Roncoli, C., K. Ingram and P. Kirshen, 2001: The costs and risks of coping with drought:
livelihood impacts and farmers’ responses in Burkina Faso. Climate Res., 19, 119-132.
Saitabau, H.S.O. and Maundu, P. (2008) Indigenous knowledge in predicting and monitoring
climate and seasonal cycles among the Loita Maasai of Kenya. A powerpoint presentation
given at the ISE Congress. Kenya Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge
Seo, S.N. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006a: Climate change impacts on animal husbandry in
Africa: a Ricardian analysis. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa
(CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 9, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 42 pp.
Seo, S.N. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006b: Climate change adaptation in Africa: a microeconomic
analysis of livestock choice. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA)
Discussion Paper No.19, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 37 pp.
Sinafasi Makelo Adrien (2006) The DRC Case Study: The Impacts of the Carbon Sinks of IbiBatéké Project on the Indigenous Pygmies of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A case
study commissioned by the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical
Forests. http://www.international-alliance.org/documents/Climate%20Change%20-%20DRC.pdf
Thomas, D. et al (2005) Adaptations to climate change amongst natural resource-dependant
societies in the developing world: across the Southern African climate gradient. Tyndall Centre
for Climate Change Research Technical Report 35.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme3/final_reports/t2_31.pdf
42
ANNEX 2
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
The UNFCCC considers what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with the
inevitable increases in temperature. Parties to the UNFCCC are obligated by the
Convention and various decisions to assess their national-level impacts of climate change
and their efforts to adapt to these impacts as inputs for their national communications.
UNFCCC Compendium
The UNFCCC Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and
vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change22 is a web-based resource that
provides key information on available frameworks, methods and tools, and their special
features. It is designed to assist Parties and other potential users in selecting the most
appropriate methodology for assessments of impacts and vulnerability, and preparing for
adaptation to climate change. The compendium was most recently revised in February
2008 (as part of the Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to
climate change) and it draws on information provided by Parties and organizations on
existing and emerging assessment methodologies and tools; and views on lessons learned
from their application; opportunities, gaps, needs, constraints and barriers; possible ways
to develop and better disseminate methods and tools; and training opportunities.
The frameworks and associated toolkits included in the UNFCCC Compendium span a
broad range of approaches, and address the following in detail:






IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and
Adaptations
U.S. Country Studies Program (USCSP)23
UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework (APF)24
Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change in Multiple
Regions and Sectors (AIACC)25
Guidelines for the Preparation of National Adaptation Programmes of
Action (NAPA)26
United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) Climate
22
http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/nairobi_workprogramme/compendium_on_methods_too
ls/application/pdf/20080307_compendium_m_t_complete.pdf
23
Benioff, T., Guill, S., and Lee, J. (eds.). 1996. Vulnerability and Adaptation
Assessments: An International Guidebook, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
24
http://ncsp.undp.org/report_detail.cfm?Projectid=151
25
http://www.aiaccproject.org/.
26
http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/ldc/application/pdf/annguide.pdf
43
Adaptation: Risk, Uncertainty and Decision Making27
The IPCC Technical Guidelines, the UNEP Handbook, and the U.S. Country Studies
Program represent examples of first generation approaches to the assessment of
vulnerability and adaptation in that they have an analytical thrust, and focus on an
approach that emphasizes the identification and quantification of impacts. The APF is a
second-generation assessment and places the assessment of vulnerability at the center of
the process. The AIACC approach (technically a collection of projects rather than an
explicit framework) incorporates elements of both first generation and second-generation
assessments. The NAPA Guidelines provide some conceptual and procedural oversight
for the process of producing a document that identifies national priorities for adaptation.
The UKCIP report provides guidance to those engaged in decision-making and policy
processes. It lays out an approach to integrating climate adaptation decisions and more
generally climate influenced decisions into the broader context of institutional decisionmaking. The UKCIP framework is distinctive in that it casts the assessment process in
risk and decision under uncertainty terms.
The UNFCCC Compendium also describes tools to address cross-cutting themes (such as
the use of climate or socio-economic scenario data), decision analysis (tools that are
applicable to particular steps of the assessment process), outlined in Table 1. Additional
tools specific to different sectors are also examined in detail, covering agriculture, water,
coastal resources, human health, and terrestrial vegetation.
Table 1: Tools assessed in the UNFCCC Compendium on the development and
application of scenarios and stakeholder approaches
A. General tools
IPCC-TGCIA Guidelines on the Use of Scenario Data for Climate
Impact and Adaptation Assessment
The Climate Impacts LINK Project
NCEP Global Ocean Data Assimilation System (GODAS)
RClimDex
SimCLIM
UKCIP02 Climate Change Scenarios
Climate Information and Prediction Services (CLIPS) Project and
Regional Climate Outlook Forums (RCOFs)
B. Climate downscaling techniques
Statistical Downscaling
Statistical DownScaling Model (SDSM)
Dynamical Downscaling
MAGICC/SCENGEN
Weather Generators
27
http://www.ukcip.org.uk
44
COSMIC2 (COuntry Specific Model for Intertemporal Climate Vers.
2)
PRECIS (Providing REgional Climates for Impacts Studies)
C. Socioeconomic scenarios
Developing Socioeconomic Scenarios: For Use in Vulnerability and
Adaptation Assessments
Adoption of Existing Socioeconomic Scenarios
Qualitative and Quantitative Scenarios Emphasizing Stakeholder
Input
UKCIP Socio-Economic Scenarios
D. Stakeholder Approaches
Stakeholder Networks and Institutions
Scoping
Vulnerability Indices
Agent Based Social Simulation
Livelihood Sensitivity Exercise
Multistakeholder Processes
Global Sustainability Scenarios
MPPACC (Model of Private Proactive Adaptation to Climate
Change)
The downscaling techniques described in the Compendium can be used to produce smallscale climate data useful for developing future climate scenarios at local scales. Some of
the techniques detailed require considerable expertise and experience (such as dynamical
downscaling), while others are relatively straightforward and easy to use (e.g.,
MAGICC/SCENGEN software, SDSM, and weather generators).
The approaches to socio-economic scenario construction included in the Compendium
are mostly part of larger frameworks. In practice, developing socio-economic futures is
an ad hoc process with the nature of the planned assessment dictating the choice of
scenarios development.
The stakeholder approaches described in the compendium represent a way of analyzing
the institutional and organizational context of the adaptation strategy planning process
more than they do specific tools to be applied to an assessment.
UNFCCC National Reports
National reports on implementation of the Convention submitted by each Party must
submit national reports that include information on national circumstances, vulnerability
assessment, climate change impacts and adaptation measures. In conducting these
vulnerability assessments, reporting Parties typically use both internationally developed
methodologies and national models, ranging from the use of sophisticated computer
models to qualitative assessments based on expert judgment and literature review.
Additionally, statistical analysis and spatial/temporal analogues are applied to develop
45
climate change scenarios for various time horizons up to 2100, which they used to infer
relationships between mean climate change and extreme events.
Although the information is centred on current and future options, measures and
strategies for climate change in general rather than specific to indigenous peoples, the
vulnerability assessments contained in these reports contain significant relevant data
highlight relevant trends and, some national reports also provide information on
vulnerability and adaptation that is directly relevant to their indigenous peoples. For
example, the fourth national report of New Zealand28 highlights specific Maori
vulnerability to soil erosion from flooding and ocean surge, while the third national report
of Canada29 highlights specific outcomes of initial impact and adaptation studies,
including community case studies of permafrost degradation and infrastructure in the
Mackenzie Valley.
The synthesis of fourth national communications, prepared by the UNFCCC Secretariat
for consideration in Bali, December 200730, concluded that coastal zones, water
resources, human health and agriculture are the areas and sectors most vulnerable to
climate change according to Parties’ national assessments. Coastal zones are at increased
risk from erosion, flooding, storm damage, changing coastal contours, wetlands build-up
and salt-water intrusion into freshwater reserves. Water resources could be diminished
through the drying of lakes, reduced stream flow and underground outflow and increased
flooding, and degradation through freshwater contamination. Human health is at
increased risk from heat (and in some cases, cold) stress, water scarcity, vector-, foodand water-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever and diarrhoea, and polleninduced allergies such as asthma and hay fever. Agriculture is at risk from net reductions
in crop production, with decreases in many regions and increases in fewer regions.
In the sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not
included in Annex I to the Convention31 most Parties emphasized that they are already
experiencing stresses from climate and climate-related events and phenomena that could
be exacerbated by future climate change, which makes them highly vulnerable. Small
island developing States, and countries with long coastlines and low-lying areas pointed
out their experiences with severe floods and drought, adverse effects from changes in the
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, tropical storms and changes in their
patterns, salt water intrusion, storm surges, coral reef damage, and changes in migratory
patterns of important fish. Some countries stated that they are concerned about long-term
sustainability of their arid/marginal regions.
Key vulnerabilities identified included agriculture and food security, water resources,
coastal zones and marine ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems (forests, rangelands, etc.),
human health and human settlements, fisheries, and other areas such as biodiversity,
28
FCCC/IDR.4/NZL
FCCC/IDR.3/CAN
30
FCCC/SBI/2007/INF.6
31
FCCC/SBI/2005/18
29
46
infrastructure, coral reefs, tourism and energy. Some countries reported on the
fertilization effect of increased atmospheric concentration of CO2. Small island
developing States reported on possible agricultural losses and devastating effect on
coastal communities and infrastructure as a consequence of the sea-level rise. Many
Parties stated that they already experience severe water supply problems caused by a
rapid increase in population, growing demands from agriculture and industry, expanding
urbanization, unabated pollution of water bodies and the exacerbation of these by the
effects of climatic variability and extreme events.
Parties reported information on the likely incidence of diseases such as malaria, cholera
and dengue fever, and the potential for an increase in cardiovascular and intestinal
diseases, influenza, yellow fever and general morbidity, but they also mentioned the lack
of data on and understanding of the interactions between health conditions and climate.
Therefore much of the information presented on climate change impacts on human health
was based on qualitative assessments, although a few Parties used statistical correlation
to infer the relationship between climate characteristics, population data and incidence of
diseases such as heat stress, cramps, dehydration, rashes, vascular and renal disorders,
viral conjunctivitis and influenza.
Most countries evaluated the impacts of projected climate change on their forests and
rangelands, in terms of changes in biomass, species composition and vegetation types.
Impacts were found to be negative in general. Others examined the possible climate
change impacts on fisheries as a part of their vulnerability and adaptation assessments.
Some Parties provided information on the vulnerability of tourism, infrastructure, energy
systems and biodiversity, which would be affected by increased frequency and intensity
of storms and hurricanes.
Some of the adaptation options considered include introduction of water policy reforms
focusing on water conservation, inter-basin water transfer, desalination, flood
management and construction of dams, development of drought-tolerant crops,
improvement of early warning systems, enhancement of erosion control, training and
assisting farmers, integration of coastal zone management, improvement of health care
systems, enhancement of forest management, protection of tourism infrastructure,
strengthening of environmental legislation and promotion of conservation.
Many Parties also reported on plans to incorporate or integrate climate change concerns
into their planning processes as a strategy for adaptation to climate change over the long
term. Some Parties have included adaptation measures in their national action plans
and/or national environmental action plans as a first step towards implementation of
adaptation, and others have reported that some legislative changes would help facilitate
incorporation of climate change adaptation in the future.
Most Parties provided information on possible adaptation measures and strategies in key
sectors. Countries in the Africa and the Latin America and the Caribbean regions
consider adaptation in agriculture and water resources sectors as top priority, whereas in
Asia adaptation in agriculture, forests and terrestrial ecosystems are regarded as high
47
priority. In small island developing States, adaptation in water resources and coastal
zones, including sea-level rise, was considered as top priority.
A number of anticipatory and reactive adaptation measures have been identified in key
sectors. Most of these measures relate to crop management, land management and soil
and water conservation in agriculture and food security; supply-side and demand-side
management of water resources; conservation and management of forests and other
terrestrial ecosystems; land-use planning and zoning and integrated coastal zone
management; and improvements in living standards, surveillance, monitoring and early
warning systems for outbreaks of disease vectors that threaten human health.
48